Advocating for the right of consenting adults to share and enjoy love, sex, residence, and marriage without limits on the gender, number, or relation of participants. Full marriage equality is a basic human right.

This blog is a collection of writings from women who wish to share their experience of genetic sexual attraction (GSA).

GSA is a natural response to a broken situation. It is nature's design to help with the bonding process that ought to have happened at the onset of the relationship but did not because of early separation and/or abandonment.

The site is dealing with heterosexual relationships, at least so far. Will there be a GSA site for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals? I do expect more sites will be needed as the GSA community continues to connect and grow.

Not many women who experience GSA directly or indirectly talk about this life altering experience, because of fears and taboo around incest. Our hope is for women and men to come here and get a feminine point of view on how GSA can dramatically affect women and all their relationships because of this unexpected intense phenomenon.

Voices of daughters who have/had a GSA relationship with their fathers, voices of mothers who have/had a GSA relationship with their sons, voices of sisters who have/had a GSA relationship with their brothers, wives who have/had a husband experiencing GSA with a familial member are written and expressed here.

One of the helpful pages already there is “Evaluating the Risks- Questions for Daughters.”

One of the critical dangers in a GSA relationship, is in it's far reaching effects on a family unit. Here are some reflective questions for a daughter struggling to evaluate her relationship with her birth father.

There are some great questions. I wanted to briefly talk about a few of them…

1. Are you currently married and/or have children?
5. Are you prepared to lose your husband and/or your children for this new relationship?
9. How does he treat his current spouse (if he has one)?

I generally discourage people from acting against existing vows to others. But I also would not place someone experiencing and acting upon GSA in the same category as most cheaters (although it can feel even worse to the person cheated on). Someone with vows to another or others that would preclude the freedom to act on GSA, or with commitments of time, attention, and emotional intimacy that are threatened by the pull of GSA, need some strong support in maintaining their commitments or repairing their prior-existing relationships., as well as navigating the GSA relationship in a way that is acceptable to all involved.

6. Have you evaluated whether or not your needs are truly sexual?
7. Imagine your relationship with your father without the sexual component. Can you imagine a scenario in which you would feel loved without sex? If so, write out that scenario.
11. Who was the one who initiated the sexual component? If it was you, have you explored why you felt those needs in that way? If it was him, what caused you to say yes to him?
13. What is the primary motivation for engaging in a sexual relationship?

If someone is disturbed by their own sexual behavior, or has good reason to believe their GSA is for a toxic, abusive, or basically incompatible person, these questions can be helpful. Other than that, my blog is a sex-positive blog that supports the rights of any consenting adults to share sex (or love, residence, or marriage.)

Sex is a natural, positive (overall) part of adult human relations, and as long as it doesn’t go against existing vows to others, nobody need explain or justify their desire to have sex or actually having sex with other consenting adults. The problems surrounding GSA are made worse by laws, discrimination, prejudices and blanket condemnation against consanguinamory (consensual incest); discouraging open, honest and inclusive discussion; and a lack of research.

People have sex for many different reasons. When GSA is involved, there are even more. Sex is a way to bond, learn about each other and ourselves, demonstrate love, express affection, and so many other things.

These same questions can be asked of any woman in any sexual relationship. There are women (and men), including married ones, who wouldn’t miss sex if they never had it again. (I’m not one of them, but they do exist.) There are many things in life we can survive without, but that doesn’t mean we should deny ourselves of those things.

I wonder if these articles will keep up after today? Will we still get polyamory articles, but with a focus on Mormon-style polygyny or plural marriage? The biggest Mormon church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints (of which Mitt Romney is an active member), long ago officially renounced plural marriages, but many other groups that consider Joseph Smith a prophet have not. Romney’s ancestors did have plural marriages, and he’s looking like the likely Republican candidate for US President. Here’s an article by Leonora LaPeter Anton at tampabay.com “Polyamorists Say They're Not Like Newt.”

Shara Smith has three boyfriends, two in Tampa, one in Portland. Her Portland boyfriend has half a dozen "partners," including Shara. Her Tampa boyfriends are dating not only her but each others' wives.

It's complicated, to be sure. But Smith, 35, believes that some people, like herself, are not meant to be monogamous.

It should be apparent to everyone that some people are simply not monogamous, and nothing will change that. Trying to force such people to be makes everyone unhappy. Some people are polyamorous.

Far from embracing Gingrich as a celebrity adherent, some in the polyamory community were quick to distance themselves, saying his alleged actions gave their lifestyle a bad name.

What Gingrich was doing was cheating. He wasn’t doing polyamory. He claims to be monogamous now. So, he’s not polyamorous by orientation or by function.

"The thing about polyamory is that everyone has to agree to it and so as long as you have any partners who didn't agree to it, it's not polyamory — it's cheating," Shara Smith said.

Smith is right.

Polygamy is morally wrong, according to 91 percent of Americans polled by Gallup in 2009. That's almost exactly the same number of people who say it's morally wrong for married men and women to have an affair.

Polls can be tricky. Most news about polygamy is about isolated communities being raided by law enforcement, or about women completely hidden inside burkas who do not have equal rights under the laws in their country. So most of the people being polled probably think of an old man forcing himself on multiple underage girls, who have no real option and no recourse. Shows like “Big Love” and “Sister Wives” are changing this, and if the polls were conducted differently, I’m sure we’d see that more people would support the rights of three or more consenting adults to marry if they all have equal rights under the law. If people know we’re talking about their friends and neighbors, rather than some group of “others” living under oppression, they will be more likely to support adult relationship freedoms. Regardless, fundamental rights such as marriage equality are not based on popular opinion.

Following the article was a “Polyamory Society Glossary” listing from the Polyamory Society…

Polyamorist Braided Commitment Band: is a symbol of a poly partner's commitment to the poly relationship and family, the band is braided annually on a day set aside to celebrate the poly union.

Bright-eyed Novice: a person who has just discovered polyamory. Handle at your own risk as they tend to date as if eating at a buffet, they are still unaware of the amount of energy and work they will need to make their relationships work and have not yet refined their communication skills.

Closed group marriage: A group of individuals who describe themselves as married but may not be all primaries and who are closed to outside sexual relationships. 2: A marriage in which fidelity is not equated with monogamy.

Compersion: the feeling of taking joy in the joy that others you love share among themselves, especially taking joy in the knowledge that your beloveds are expressing their love for one another. The term was coined by a commune in San Francisco which practiced polyfidelity.

Polyfidelity: a group in which all partners are primary to all other partners and sexual fidelity is to the group; shared intent of a lifelong run together. More primary partners can be added with everyone's consent.

Terriaminute wrote what I was thinking…

It is refreshing to see calm, sane articles in such beautiful contrast to what so many seem to think is "normal". Cheating is not normal, it is dishonest. Open loving relationships are better and healthier every time. The details are less important than the honesty!

Thank you for publishing such a great story!

Equating cheating to polygamy or polyamory in general is like equating practiced, refereed motorsports on a closed course to reckless driving on open public roads.

Monday, January 30, 2012

Larry Raines appeals from a judgment of the Jessamine Circuit Court on his conditional guilty plea to seven counts of incest.

Seven counts of incest? What, did he rape his 14-year-old daughter? He was sentenced to five years in prison, which would be too short of a term for such crimes.

But hold on.

Raines reserved his right to appeal based on whether the incest statute, as enacted in 2006, was applicable to the sexual contact between him and his stepdaughter since she was an adult at the time of the sexual incidents.

He had consensual sex with a grown woman who is not his biological relative, and was sentenced to five years in prison for it. For consensual sex. Not even incestuous consensual sex.

As we saw out of another state recently, general sex-negative attitudes and bigotry against consanguinamory specifically not only means absurd laws against consenting adults enjoying a consanguinamorous relationship, but also against people who aren’t even blood related having sex with each other.

Raines argues that the incest statute, which was in effect in 2006 when the incest occurred, did not criminalize consensual sexual relations between adult persons whose familial relationship was stepfather and stepdaughter, that is, in cases where the parties were adults and not blood-related. The Commonwealth counters that the statute did criminalize sexual intercourse between a stepfather and a stepdaughter notwithstanding that the stepdaughter was an adult.

Just to be clear…

At that time, KRS 530.020 stated:

(1) A person is guilty of incest when he has sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse, as defined in KRS 510.010, with a person whom he or she knows to be an ancestor, descendant, brother, or sister. The relationships referred to herein include blood relationships of either the whole or half blood without regard to legitimacy, relationship of parent and child by adoption, and relationship of stepparent and stepchild.

(2)(a) Incest is a Class C felony

This is ridiculous. I would applaud attaching enhancements to sentences for rape, sexual assault, and molestation committed by a guardian or under the color of authority. But anti-incest laws that criminalize consensual sex between adults, even unrelated adults, are a waste of law enforcement. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults, without prosecution, without bullying, and without discrimination.

The first woman to be convicted of incest was placed on 12 months' probation on Monday.

The 24-year-old accused was 20 at the time when she had consensual sex with her father, a 48-year-old plumber, at their home in April 2008.

He is now serving three years behind bars for a similar offence.

The court heard that the woman, then a technical executive, had been accompanying her father to coffeeshops since 2006 to meet his friends for drinks. They became close over time to the point of touching and fondling each other's private parts when they were alone in the flat.

The news source implies there is more information behind their subscription wall.

I am glad she got probation instead of prison time, but this case should never have been brought in the first place. It is a waste of public resources.

Sunday, January 29, 2012

A Young Contrarian Speaks, which presents “rhetoric from a lonely liberal,” offered thoughts on abn advice column that dealt with sex between a widowed grandmother and her grandson, “On Incestuous Grandmothers and Morality.”

Not that I have anything against the pitiful undergrad who dabbled with a potent combination of incest and anililagnia, but it was hard to read the atrocious advice offered by ‘Thelma’ without wincing. She indulged in age-old assumption that men are horny beasts utterly incapable of controlling our lustful desires, while women (apparently even those tottering with creaking joints and wrinkled skin) indubitably play the role of the seductress. This morally dubious judgement was immediately followed by a legally erroneous one- it is irrelevant to bring up statutory rape when the lad in question was clearly over the age of consent in Malaysia (16), and furthermore our laws do not make allowance for male victims of rape.

It is good to have that clarity.

What is so morally abhorrent about incest? The automatic reaction for most people (including myself) upon reading the aforementioned column is a cringe of disgust. This sense of repulsion is caused by a variety of factors, but most obviously by the incestuous nature the sexual relationship. I personally would not be very much disturbed by the notion of the young lad enjoying carnal relations with an elderly woman (though I may find his taste questionable).

“Elderly” women can be great, experienced, caring lovers.

It is the blood-tie, the familial relation that causes that instinctive flinch of distaste to the whole state of affairs.

For some.

The fact that countless people discriminate against homosexuality for reasons which do not stand a moment’s scrutiny makes me wary of not challenging my own deeply imbedded assumptions.

Ask the next person you meet why precisely does he or she impugn the morality of incestuous relationships, and chances are you will get the following reaction: ‘It’s just not natural!’. That exclamation, accompanied by the furore of the eyebrows and grimace of the mouth, appears to be the end of the discussion for most people on the subject. Unfortunately, the argument is one that is equally often employed against homosexuality and it has no merits in either case.

Firstly comes the question of what exactly is defined as ‘natural’, after all, are humans natural? And if we are natural beings, how can it be possible for us to do anything unnatural? Assume that you are able to neatly divide the world’s phenomena in sub categories of ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’, and you still have the problem that the naturalness of an act has little to say about its morality. There are natural phenomena that are hugely destructive (virus, tsunamis), and unnatural phenomena which we all love and cherish (the internet, vaccines). Clearly it is not possible to judge the moral character of an act simply by whether or not you consider it ‘natural’.

Well done.

A more plausible line of argument may be that incestuous relationships lead to lack of genetic diversity, in other words-deformed children. This is certainly a relevant component to consider, but it hardly settles the issue.

If we were to condemn incest purely on the grounds of genetic diversity, we would have to denounce all couples who carry a higher than normal risk of passing on defective genes (such as those with a recessive Down syndrome gene). And yet we do not look upon such couples with condemnation but with sympathy. It comes into question what degree of genetic risk is acceptable for our scorn; after all by most measures children produced by first cousin couples only carry a marginally higher risk of chromosomal irregularity. The whole question is made moot by the fact that we live in an era where contraceptives are easily available, and sexual intercourse is done for reasons other than procreation. Since an infertile but incestuous relationship is almost certainly to be condemned in equal terms by most parties, the possibility of deformed children does not appear to be the central issue here.

Well done, again.

The only path left for one wishing to prohibit incest is either an appeal to religion, or to just call it repugnant without clarification.

I won’t go into the religion argument too closely, but suffice to say that every religion has had its rules on morality bent due to the passage of time, and a great many practices we take for granted today (equal rights for women, usage of condoms) would have seemed morally questionable at time of the conception of most monotheistic religions. You have to employ something further than a reference to divine to justify your belief, at least if you want others to take you seriously. The argument from repugnance is rarely articulated, it is just assumed that if sufficient people hold a consensus in dislike for a certain act then no further justification is required. It should be obvious however, that we cannot simply implement policies and laws on the basis of our individual tastes. The fact that the question even arises shows that at least one other individual (or in this case two individuals) does not share in the popular assessment.

By making these arguments, I do not have to indicate encouragement or approval of incestuous relationships. I do, however, point out that the vitriol and revulsion commonly associated with the taboo of incest seems to be rather misplaced. There are much more horrific actions to disavow than consensual sex between adults, and the sharing of a common bloodline does not immediately make it inherently unethical. My own line of thinking that the dynamics of a family structure does make sex between their direct members significantly unhealthy,

When people are informed and sit down and think it through, rather thank letting their personal, knee-jerk emotional reactions to form opinion on law, they’ll see that there is no reason to deny the consanguinamorous freedoms to sex and marriage.

Saturday, January 28, 2012

I obviously can't share it with anyone in my life but I feel a genuine need to get it off my chest.

My brother and I are living as a married couple. No one knows we are siblings. No, we aren't inbred rednecks. We are college educated and semi-successful in our careers. (I am actually a teacher which is part of the reason I can't let this get out).

This has been happening all over the world, all throughout history, between siblings rich and poor, royal and peasant, white collar or blue collar, young and old, urban and rural.

It began back in college when we shared an apartment. He was dating my best friend and she was treating him like crap. I hated watching it. One night they'd had a fight and we were discussing it. He suddenly came out with the sentiment that he wished he could just be with me, because we've always got along so well. It was awkward and neither of us brought it up again for a while, but there was tension between us after that.

Then one day I found out my friend was cheating on my brother. We had a huge fight and I told my brother what had happened. He was furious. I was furious for him. He kissed me and I didn't push him away.

No, we did not start having passionate sex at this point like in some porno. That came after a few more weeks of awkwardness and the gradual growing of our feelings.

Part of the problem is that that sex police have tried to get everyone to believe that this can’t happen between anyone.

It happened when we were home for Christmas vacation. We were both up late one night when he just took my hand and led me to the basement which was converted into a kind of guest room.

For a while after that I could barely look at myself in the mirror. I was sickened that I'd had sex with my own brother. I considered moving out of our apartment, but I liked it there and didn't want to move into a dorm. Besides, it had been consensual. I had participated freely.

We really did try to make it a one time thing, but eventually broke down and had sex again. We've been doing it ever since. After we both graduated we moved across the country to a place where no one knew us and presented ourselves as a couple. We have the same last name, so that makes it easy. Our friends, neighbors and co-workers have no idea that we are siblings.

I have noticed, and many others have too, couples who have presented themselves as married who look very much alike. Is that really a simple coincidence in every case? No, it isn’t.

Our family has no idea what we are doing, as far as I know. I hope it stays that way because it would ruin our lives if it got out.

It’s really too bad that they have to hide. They aren’t hurting anyone.

She cites Cleopatra’s relationships with Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, then writes…

Today, we would rightly question the ethics of these love affairs, but given the way women were treated in the ancient world–and even until recently–her relationships with these men seems positively enlightened. Especially when you contrast them with the sexual relationships she was supposed to have as the Queen of Egypt.

To wit, she was not only expected to marry her brother, but to have children by him.

In general, there’s not necessarily anything wrong with that. What bothers me most is someone being pressured to marry someone against their will. It used to be more common, especially for women, and I’m glad that is becoming a part of the past for more and more regions of the world rather than continuing into the future.

You might assume that the Ptolemaic gene pool would produce a lot of inbred drooling abominations, but aside from a tendency towards weight-gain and buggy eyes, the Ptolemies don’t appear to have suffered any genetic abnormalities.

So much for the often repeated myth that consanguineous parentage always results in birth defects.

So was it worth it?

Consanguinamory is its own reward as it is. However, she’s talking about politically…

Well, the evidence tells us that it was. The Ptolemies ruled Egypt for almost three hundred years. And if the Battle of Actium had gone the other way, Egyptian culture would have dominated western civilization.

Very interesting.

There were come comments when I read the piece.

Christi Barth…

You bet it was worth it! And the modern version still rolls on. Look at Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip – they are cousins (albeit several times removed). The Hawaiian royal family did it. The current King of Thailand is married to his 1st cousin, and his parents were half-siblings!

Anthropology Guide takes a brief look at some of the traditional, practical reasons for polygyny and polyandry in some cultures

In societies in which women are economically important, polygyny favours increase in man's wealth and consequent social position.

In what society haven’t women been economically important? Or is that phrase euphemistic for “women as property?” Polygyny does not have to mean women as property. Each woman should be free to make her own choice about whether, when, and with which consenting adult(s) she will marry.

In ancient and medieval India, many rulers married women from different clans and villages to strengthen their political, social and economic position.

Which is exactly why rulers might ban polygamy for others.

Even in societies in which polygyny is defined few men have more than one wife.

So much for the claims that the polygamous freedom to marry will mean gangs of dateless men rioting in the streets.

In Sororal polygyny a man marries sisters who may cooperate and get along without creating family discord.

Sisters never fight.

Seriously, though, although there are polygynous marriages in which it is always one man, one woman at a time in terms of lovemaking, there have also been some in which, at least at times, there’s two or more wives with the husband at the same time, or the wives have something going on between them. Some such polygynous marriages have involved sisters. That’s getting along really well.

Polyandry has been recorded in parts of Tibet and among the Todas and Paharis in India.

In societies where men may have to be away from home for long spells of time a woman with more than a husband is assured of protection and help.

Among other things.

Fraternal Polyandry recorded in the Toda tribes in the Nilgiri hills South India is a system according to which a woman marries brothers.

Again with the siblings. It’s nothing new.

These are traditional marriages, and whatever reason someone may want to enter such marriages today, there’s no good reason to ban them. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults.

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

No, I'm not talking about the states of Washington, New Jersey, and Maryland, where the limited same-sex freedom to marry is advancing, happily. I'm talking about consanguinamory.

I appreciate all readers who take the time to comment, and I have deliberately allowed anonymous comments due to the subject matter of this blog. I especially appreciate repeat commenters who hare supportive, such as VeganJoyJoy and Liz.

But getting a comment from someone new to the blog can also let me know word is getting out. It’s nice to know that we are making a difference.

I once asked to a few people: "How do you feel about love between siblings?"

I mostly got "Eww" as an answer. Then I realized that I have been raised in a world were it was obvious that it was wrong. Without giving me any valid arguments, I believed what people told me. I recently read a beautiful manga about a love story between a brother and his sister and I wondered: "Why is it wrong?" I did a little research and I found this website. I was amazed by…what I read. I feel somewhat more at ease knowing that the questions I use to ask myself didn't mean I was crazy. That's a relief...

Glad to be of help.

Going through adolescence is far less hard when you realize you're neither alone or completely insane.

Although, I believe teenagers with questions should not have to look this far into the internet to find some answers. Practically all we know about consanguinamory is that it's forbidden and that it's gross. No one ever bothered to give me any argument whatsoever. Occasionally people would tell me about genetics and stuff, but that's not sufficient at all. Not for me at least.

Monday, January 23, 2012

One of the frontrunners to become the Republican nominee for US President is Newt Gingrich, who has twice left a wife for a mistress who subsequently became his wife. In some countries, a politician having a mistress isn’t a big deal; it is even expected. Not so in the US. The US has elected a divorced President before, but this is different because of how his marriages started and ended. Wife #2 claimed in a recent television interview that Newt asked for an open marriage after he’d already taken on a mistress.

This has prompted much discussion about nonmonogamy, and, unfortunately, some poor use of terminology.

Swapping, in the simplest form, involves two couples switching partners, whether they are all together in the same location or not.

Swinging involves people in a steady relationship having sex with people in other steady relationships, for example at a party with many couples.

An open marriage is one in which the spouses have mutually agreed that monogamy is not expected; any spouse may be with other lovers.

Polyamory involves dating, having sex with, or living with more than one person (not necessarily together), under agreement by all.

What Gingrich did to his second wife was cheating, not swinging. She was not agreeable to having an open or polyamorous relationship, nor was Gingrich asking her to swing or swap. Cheating is engaging in sex, dating, or romance with someone in a way that violates a prior, existing commitment to, or condition with, another.

Polyamory in the News rounds up some recent articles dealing inspired by Gingrich here and here.

However, what would otherwise be considered innocent has been twisted by MediaTakeOut.com to make it seem like Kardashian and Rob are enjoying the experience more than they should. The site even wrote, "We can't quite put our finger on it, but Kim an her brother Rob have a very ODD relationship. You could tell that he was always JEALOUS when Kris Humphries was around. And they're always very TOUCHY FEELY towards each other."

Yikes. That doesn't sound good. During a time when Kim Kardashian and her entire family are coming under fire for being fake and overly pampered, more bad press is not welcomed.

Sigh. Nothing I saw necessarily implies anything sexual is going on between them. But even if they do have a consanguinamorous relationship, it shoudn’t be the target of such hate.

The message bigotry like this sends to young people who have affectionate relationships with their siblings is that there is something wrong with them, and that’s not right, and they should never embrace or otherwise touch each other.

Well, I'm here to tell those young people that there's nothing wrong with siblings getting along, being affectionate, and even being consanguinamorous. It isn't rare and it can be a good thing. And in this case, isn't it better than going from married to splitsville in less than 80 days?

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Looking at the pics in the story by Barbie Davenporte of LA Weekly about the mother-daughter modeling team posing for lingerie company The Lake and the Stars we didn’t see anything we’d call disturbing. Unusual, yes. Intriguing from the perspective of “What was it like for them to shoot it?” for sure. And definitely making good on its stated interest in addressing the psychology of female relationships.

At least Langley asks readers what they think, instead of telling them that they should be disturbed...

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Although all parties seem dedicated to providing a loving home for Jaiya's two-year-old son, Aiman, it's pretty obvious that Old Shoe Jon is uneasy with the arrangement at times, telling the reporter that the relationship "can be tough; especially if that little voice of low self-esteem comes up or that social voice of 'that's your girlfriend.'"

Just about any honest person in a long-term monogamous relationship will admit that there have been times or ongoing issues or uneasiness in the relationship, so that some people in polyamorous relationships experience some discomfort or is less than enthusiastic about something should not be surprising. Jon is probably happier than he would be if he was no longer there, just as some (certainly not all) divorced monogamists realize they were happier when married.

Clearly Jon grapples with issues of jealousy and feelings of inadequacy in his poly-relationship, but to be fair, those feelings can be present no matter how many people are involved.

Yes.

Can polyamorous relationships ever work?

Yes! They can and do.

Would you ever consider a less-than-traditional partnership?

Too late to just consider.

And if so, what would that look like?

Whatever works for the participants. There are many possibilities. As for me, I’m not going to detail everything out loud in my personal life right now, but I have no problem with being a “secondary,” meaning the woman I love and am in a relationship with can have other lovers, including ones that take priority over me, while I am also to free to be in a relationship with another woman.

Friday, January 20, 2012

Not the GSA I usually write about. See GLAAD's website for information of National Gay-Straight Alliance days. GSAs are very important in helping young people deal with discrimination and raise awareness.

I recommend starting, supporting, or joining a GSA. They aren't just for LGBT people, but heterosexual allies as well. Polyamorous and consanguinamorous students (out or not) and people with poly parents should join to show solidarity for people who are denied their rights and show others who are skeptical about solidarity that poly people and people in consanguinamorous relationships are regular people who also face discrimination.

Keeping children in the dark about anatomy, gender identity, sexuality, and relationships as well as molestation, sexual assault, or harassment, or leading them to be ashamed or afraid of their body, sexuality, identity, or feelings is a prescription for disaster. Because of Genetic Sexual Attraction, this is especially true of children who are adopted, resulted from a sperm, egg or embryo donation, or are otherwise likely to have genetic siblings with whom they are not growing up.

Many of the influences that the children will experience will, overtly or subtly, tell them that the ideal or only right relationship is a closed, monogamous, heterosexual marriage with someone close in age and of the same race who does not have a common ancestor for at least several generations. That is an extremely narrow and limiting view of human sexuality and relationships, and causes no small amount of pain. There are people who are happy fitting into that mold, but it is by no means the only existing, right, or functional relationship model and will not work for everyone.

It is also a good idea to inform children about the bigotries and prejudices that exist, some backed by unjust laws in some places, against people of certain sexual orientations or against some consensual relationships, and how to deal with and respond to such problems.

As far as two of my favorite topics, polyamory and consanguinamory, someone might, in addition to generally being uncomfortable with the fact that their teenager is a sexual being, be horrified at the idea of their teen being polyamorous or consanguinamorous. But from a parental perspective, when thought through logically:

1. Isn't it preferable to have a teen who is ethically polyamorous and open and honest about that with their family and their potential partners than to have a teen who is secretly hooking up with many different peers?

2. Isn't it preferable to have a teen who is satisfying their urges and curiosities with a sibling or cousin with mutual love and affection in the discreet privacy of their own home, as opposed to being known around town for hooking up with strangers or classmates at parties who don’t care about them?

Yes, I know most parents want their teens to be heterosexual and virgin monogamists, but most people are not going to be in all of those categories by the time they reach their twenties. It is better to be realistic, proactive, informative, and supportive than to make things even more difficult for your own child.

I thought it made more strategic sense to get people to accept same sex marriage, and can cross the polyamorous bridge when we come to it. But the more I think about it, the more this approach makes me very uncomfortable. There is a relevant psychological phenomenon at work here. It’s called last place aversion. Simply put, most people don’t want to come in last. At times, people near the bottom will even oppose measures thatcould help them, if they would help those below them more. That is, even though everyone is better off, they don’t want to be last. A way of understanding this phenomenon is to look at slavery in the old South. Some of the most ardent defenders of slavery were poor white people who did not directly benefit from it. They benefited psychologically by being able to say, “I may be poor, but at least I’m not black” (sociologists call this a psychic wage).

In other words, “I may be gay, but at least I’m not polyamorous!” But there are LGBT people who are polyamorous. Regardless, everyone should have their rights.

It is this feeling of being thrown under the bus by people with whom we agree on almost every major issue that should make atheists think long and hard about their approach to discussing polyamorous marriage. When we refuse to honestly acknowledge the connection between same sex marriage and polyamory, we are no better than Al Sharpton claiming that "morality" is an explicitly religious idea; we are stepping on the necks of one group in order to raise another to recognized legitimacy. It is wrong, and I will take no part in it. So cheers to wedded bliss between consenting adults, regardless of age or number!

Thank you, Cory D!

When I read that, there were some comments from readers left there as well.

Namely, that there is not and never has been a large culture of people who felt biologically driven toward polygamous behavior, much less who seek social sanction for it.

Rights aren’t reserved for the majority. Rights are not determined by how many people are being denied. That an adult should be free to marry any consenting adults applies to the polyamorous as well as the monogamous, regardless of whether the poly person is heterosexual, gay, bisexual, etc.

Far more people are nonmonogamist than are gay or lesbian. But it wouldn’t matter if there were just two gay men in the entire country. They should be free to marry. And it wouldn’t matter if there was just one polycule in the entire country. They should be free to marry, too.

Rather than throwing other adults in consensual relationships under the bus, why not respond to Santorum and other bigots with “Why not let an adult marry any consenting adults?” They won’t be able to defend their bigotry.

It’s wrong for countries that allow polygyny to ban same-gender marriage as well as other forms of polygamy, and it is wrong for countries like Canada, with same-gender monogamous marriage, to ban polygamous marriages. We have enough experience to see that some people are polygamous and unable to be happily monogamous. Some people are polyamorous as a basic part of their personality.

Equality just for some is not equality. We need full marriage equality sooner rather than later. A woman should be free to marry another woman, or two, even if one is her sister, even if one is already married. As long as they all consent, none of that hurts anyone.

If you are interested in polyamory, there's a worthwhile blog called "The Atheist, Polyamorous, Skeptic" where shaunphilly writes very well. One recent entry begins this way...

I have had a number of conversations about relationships, sexuality, and exclusivity over the years. I’ve heard many proposed reasons why polyamory cannot work for people in general or for specific individuals. But what are most interesting are the objections which are intended as critiques of polyamory, but if analyzed they turn out to be apologies for remaining jealous or possessive.

As Shaun points out...

That is, there is a difference between saying that you are happy in your exclusive relationship and saying that you could not be polyamorous because you are jealous or possessive.

Further, many arguments against polyamory could be viewed as arguments against relationships in general.

Good points. I don't agree with all of Shaun's points in this entry, but these are definitely ones with which I do agree.

Your lovers and romantic partners are not your property. You are not sharing what is yours in being polyamorous, you are just recognizing the reality that they will love other people and are grown up enough to not demand that they ignore this fact.

Some people do promise, and expect in return, exclusive access to a lover's body and sexual affection. But this isn't a necessity for everyone.

I'm referring to the show on America's ABC network. Do you watch it? I don't, although I do catch snippets here and there, mostly in TV recaps, like on "The Soup."

Someone who does watch the show tipped me off to a moment where one of the women competing (to convince the producers that she would be the best person to get her own season of "The Bachelorette"... sorry if I sound too cynical) said that she had signed up for an unnamed-but-I-think-we-all-know-the-name online matchmaking service that gives applicants a personality test and then matches people based on the information they have provided. The service matched her up with her brother.

That really shouldn't be surprising. I would think that can happen quite often if two siblings have taking the test at the same matchmaking service. They are often close in age and location, and have many things in common. See previous comments about this sort of thing here and here. And we know siblings who have been happy together.

Do you watch this show? If you do, do you take it seriously, given the track record?

In a subsequent report, it is noted that she is not being charged, and that the man is claiming police brutality.

If this was a matter of consensual sex, it shouldn't be a criminal matter in the first place. Not only has this man been subject to law enforcement action, and had his picture published, but he's possibly been abused, too. At the very least, this is a waste of law enforcement resources. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults.

I don’t refer to rape as “sex.” Sex is a beautiful thing involving consenting participants. Rape is an ugly violation of one or more people. Also, “a girl in his family” may or may not refer to a minor. This could be his sister, his niece, his daughter, his stepdaughter. The article doesn’t say what the actual charge was. The headline calls him an “incest defendant,” but with a prison sentence like that I’m guessing it was a rape of a minor girl, in which case I hope he serves his full sentence, But, if this was a matter of consensual sex with a female of the age of the consent, it shouldn’t have been a criminal matter and this was an unjust prosecution. Either way, it is important news and there should be more information provided. They can do so without revealing the identity of the victim.

The two remaining sentences shed no light on the situation. There’s not even an indication that the victim referred to in the article made a complaint, or if this was a matter of consensual sex that someone else reported.

It’s not that I don’t have an open mind, nor do I like to judge…but this seems incredibly sick.

That is judging and being closed-minded.

He is the son of her daughter Lynette Baily for goodness sakes! But to make matters worse, when she was 18-years-old, Pearl put her up for adoption.

Why does that make things worse? Pearl made the brave decision to give her child up, most likely to give that child a life better than she could provide. So Pearl did not raise Phil’s mother. They are genetic relatives, but Phil and Pearl had no prior social relationship whatsoever.

Disgusting…at her age, she should know better!

At her age, it is great that she has found love and is enjoying life. If the blogger finds it disgusting, she doesn’t have to do it. But who is she to denounce a consensual relationship between adults?

How many people Pearl’s age get warehoused in facilities and are lonely, without anyone coming to visit them? That is disgusting. Good for Pearl that she found love and companionship. These are consenting adults, and they should have their rights to share love, sex, residence and marriage and are just one of countless examples of why we need full marriage equality.

I recently lost my virginity to my twin brother. We didn't really mean for it to happen, it just did. Now i'm feeling confused, I know that it was wrong but it didn't feel that way and I feel like maybe I love my brother as more than a brother. I can't go to my mom for advice, ofcourse, so i'm asking for it here.
Was what we did really wrong? And what should I do about these confusing feelings?

In response to some questioning, she later added that she’s a 16-year-old female and that she and her brother were separated at birth. She didn’t know she had a twin brother until she was 14 and her mother and father got back together.

This could just be an issue of common teenage consanguinamory, where raging hormones, proximity, convenience, bonding, and trust contributed to a situation that is not uncommon: teen siblings having sex, even though they didn't plan it out ahead of time. Genetic Sexual Attraction could also be involved, given the separation, but I’d have to know more about her previous feelings to conclude it was GSA. Regardless, they haven’t done anything wrongor rare.

Upon further analysis (being sure not to get distracted by the beauty of both women) their mutual mannerisms are nothing beyond family-style. A hug; lying awkwardly presumably to show off the ensembles; uncomfortably - side by side; standing in the same room.

No scissoring, no kissing, no deep longing gazes into each other's eyes. Where's the incest, guys?

It’s good to see what I consider positive response to the ads. The ads also seem to be very successful in attracting interest, which is the goal of any advertisement.

Deputies received a report on Dec. 12 regarding an alleged sexual offense between a male and a juvenile victim on Roy Lopp Road in Thomasville.

So all of this information is included, but not the age of the possible victim. The article says that no further information was released.

After an investigation, deputies allege the sex offenses took place between Nov. 1 and Dec. 31.

Wouldn’t all that information tip off people in the community about the identity of the victim? Should a 16-year-old defendant’s picture and name be placed online?

If he is guilty of rape, the incest charge is superfluous and he should be locked up for a long time. If this actually a case of consensual incest between minor relatives close in age that someone else freaked out about, it shouldn’t be a rape case, either. Either way, now that his name and picture are out there, I hope the television stations keeps updating us about the case.

Incest in the arts and literature is not new, going back as far as Greek mythology (Oedipus Rex), Shakespeare (Hamlet) and Victorian romance novels. But it was almost always disguised or implied -- what went on between the sheets had to be read between the lines. Now these twisted romances are depicted in graphic detail for all to see.

Twisted?

After lumping incest in with torture, she writes…

As scripted television experiments with increasingly inflammatory material, it comes as no surprise that incest has found its way up front and center on our screens.

Okay, so we get what her bias is.

No doubt, graphic display of taboos makes for intriguing TV. Deep secrets are revealed. Forbidden behavior is on view. According to psychoanalysts, these primitive urges lie hidden in all of us and are prohibited by our conscience in order to live in civilized society.

He’s no friend of sexual or relationship rights for consenting adults, but he does agree that Lawrence v. Texas should protect the right to sex between consenting adults who are related through blood or marriage. As he notes of Lawrence…

The case involved “two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle.” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for a majority of the Court that “there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.” The Supreme Court therefore ruled that “[t]heir right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.”

Personally, I don't like rules or restrictions. Don't mistake this for me not liking respect or respecting people. I am not good at just taking information in "just because" someone told me or because society does it. I am the type of person who needs to draw her own conclusions based on fact as well as feeling.

Good for her!

By definition, I am polyamorous though I am not comfortable with labels, this is the best word explaining how I live. I don't sleep around, nor do I flirt with everyone I see and I don't have 100 people around me and currently I only have one main partner (though I have had two main partners at one time). I don't attend funky swinger or "key" parties either. My life is pretty normal. I have three close friends who I cuddle with on occasion though I only see them a few times a year, sometimes only once. Someone's gender or sexuality is also irrelevant to me, people are people! I stay friends with my ex partners because they are all awesome people even though our union did not work out. I don't believe in cutting people out unless there is no connection left or if the person did something horribly wrong.

She says why this helps her grow as a person…

By opening myself to others, this opens up new parts of me and I love it. As much as my partner is an awesome human being, he understands that I find a lot of meaning in relating closely with others. Sex can be part of the equation though it is never the main reason a person and I would decide to be friends.

Those are just some the highlights of her essay. I recommend you go read the rest to get one person’s account of their own polyamory.

Polyamorists are a diverse group. About the only thing polyamorists all have in common is actually, or being predisposed to, loving more than partner. Our vegan friend describes herself as somewhat of a loner, and she’s clearly not a swinger. But there are polyamorists who thrive on always being with others and who are swingers. There are poly people who have two lifelong loves, and they are all together at the same time. None of these people should be denied their rights to share love, sex, residence, and marriage, if that is what they want.

If incest is wrong due to genetics, (presupposing the consensual couple want to have children), then parents who smoke, have genetic diseases, are alcoholics, are drug addicts shouldn't have children either as the risk of birthing an unhealthy baby is high.

Moosa also responded…

I discussed this with a few physicians before writing and consulted some genetics books before. Any mistakes or shortcomings are therefore on my part. My apologies if I slacked off on the hard science. If you could say where I've gone wrong on the science, that would be appreciated.

However, you've only asserted that genetics must be a reason but you haven't said exactly why. There's a chance of two "unrelated" people producing children with deformities based on genetics.

If you are saying we should prevent two consenting adults from having sex because they have a higher chance of producing a child with debilities based on genetics, then surely every adult ought to be screened before engaging in sexual relations? The fact is it doesn't just happen with incestuous relations but non-incestuous ones, too (perhaps my science is wrong here?). If we then ONLY target incestuous couples with this law, based only on genetics as you keep asserting, we are promoting a double-standard, since the reasoning applies equally to NON-related adults.

Mike Cope…

Let's just say that, in general, H Sapiens prefers exogamy, and that this preference is often (usually?) expressed as a feeling of disgust for incest. Like all traits, there is likely to be some variation.

Do people really prefer exogamy? Some clearly do, but many of those people have been given a hard time by their parents. Also, look at how many people self-segregate based in appearances, skin color, ethnicity, etc. And there are studies saying that most people are attracted to people who look like them.

chris…

What is the bridge between the existence of these handicapped kids, and the judgement that we shouldn't have more of them?

People are just looking for excuses to justify their prejudices, dislikes, and interference in the love lives of others.

Doctoral candidate Tara Deliberto, who is training as a Cognitive-Behavior Therapist, wrote on her blog about consanguinamory, Genetic Sexual Attraction, the Westermarck Effect, and the Oedipal Complex.

Genetic sexual attraction occurs when genetic relatives meet for the first time in adulthood and an attraction develops. Although it is a rare occurrence, there has been an increase in the number of reported cases in recent years, typically as a consequence of adoption (according to Wikipedia).

GSA is not rare when it comes to situations of post-pubescent close genetic relatives meeting either for the first time or after being separated since at least one of them was under the age of 7. It happens in up to 50% of such situations; at least one of those people feels an overwhelming attraction to the other or one of the others. Sometimes, it is mutual.

But what about close relatives who have been around each other?

The Westermarck effect occurs for most people, but there might be a genetic reason why it doesn't kick in for some.

Most men are attracted to women and many of those men are averse to thinking about sex with other men. Some aren’t. And if there is a genetic reason why the Westermarck Effect isn’t dominant in someone, wouldn’t it make it more likely that a close genetic relative wouldn’t have that effect dominant in them, either?

So while there are probably genetic components coming into play when we see a lack of Westermarck effect, I'm guessing there might be some environmental components at work as well.

The old “nature vs. nurture” thing.

I've certainly come across research saying that people tend to pair off who are similar across many different areas. As you've probably experienced, bonding can occur when you have similar thoughts to someone else. Sure it would be boring if you were exactly the same, but I'm guessing you're probably more similar to the people you're close with than different.

Basically, if you're genetically similar to someone that you meet in adulthood, you could actually be very similar to them, being that genetics play such an important role in personality formation.

Good observation. It matches the experience of many people in GSA relationships.

With donated eggs/sperm/embryos and infant adoptions and with everything from one night stands that result in pregnancy to bitter divorces between parents, the number of people experiencing GSA is growing fast.

And while most people raised together apparently experience the Westermarck Effect, for whatever reason, it isn't present or isn't strong enough in some situations to overcome the physical attraction, convenience, and existing emotional bonds and trust that foster everything from experimentation to lifelong spousal-type relationships between close relatives.

We need more research into GSA and consanguinamory. Otherwise, therapists, counselors, social workers... you name it... are not going to be able to handle the ever-growing number of people who will be having problems related to these issues (many of which, by the way, will not be about the relationship or sex itself, but about the laws and prejudices intruding from outside of the relationship.)

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

I like to point people towards introductory and basic explanations of polyamory and being polyamorous. The Frugal Vegan offers “My Take on Polyamory.”

She took exception with a man portrayed on a documentary as a polygynist who was restricting his partners from seeing other men.

He is my worst nightmare as a male: one of those typical straight guys who dreams of being surrounded by women, what a joke. And these women who agreed to it, have put feminism back 50 years. It made me so upset I was almost yelling at the screen. :)

I can understand where our vegan friend is coming from, but if that is what he wants and if that is what each of them wants, they should be free to have those relationships. But that should never be portrayed as the typical model of polyamory. Within polyamory, there are polygynist males who appreciate that the women they love also love others.

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Did you celebrate the New Year with some casual sex? I generally don't encourage nor discourage casual sex on this blog.

However, as part of my overall support of relationship and sexual rights for consenting adults, I do not think someone should be prosecuted, discriminated against, or bullied for having casual sex.

Personally, I find sex is better with someone I love or at least care about. Notice I said better. Casual sex is usually enjoyable. As always, my advice to anyone who wants it would be to stick to safe sex principles and do not lead someone on by promising them something more than you can offer (as in, if you’re just looking for a good time for a night, don’t tell the person they are the love of your life.)

But "Shame" draws an inaccurate comparison between casual sex--an experience typically outside the context of a romantic relationship--and reckless sex. Under the right circumstances, casual sex can be deeply meaningful and more intimate than the sex in a long-term relationship. Those of us who have casual sex know that it’s not devoid of emotion, nor does it lead to the unhappiness Brandon suffers.

I don’t think everyone is generally suited to long-term, committed relationship in which they merge emotionally with another person on a complete and deep level. If people who aren’t deny that about themselves (or fail to discover it,) they can end up hurting many people by vowing fidelity when they won’t deliver it, or by building a life with someone who needs someone to provide something else, perhaps emotional, that the person can’t. Should such people never have sex? Should that be an aim of public policy? I don’t think so. It is better for such people to have casual sex.

The truth is, long-term relationships or marriage do not guarantee a satisfying emotional life or sexual intimacy. Everyone knows someone stuck in a barren marriage, whose members have lost their autonomy and in which sex has disappeared.

We all do, whether we know it or not.

Among the positives about casual sex…

There are times when casual sex actually deepens one's self-knowledge. With intelligence and clarity of purpose, casual sex is more than instant gratification. By openly exploring our fantasies and true desires with different partners in a way that may not possible in a committed relationship, we can transcend our inhibitions. With each new encounter we can discover buried parts of ourselves and in time experience the totality of who we are. We can even experience profound, revelatory moments that unravel our past and show us things we never knew about ourselves. We can satisfy unmet needs by embracing those aspects of our sexuality that are deeply meaningful and we can choose to let go of those that no longer have importance.

Full Marriage Equality

About This Blog

I argue for marriage equality. By that I mean that society and all local, state, federal, and international laws, institutions, and programs should recognize any marriage registered by any persons without restrictions on the basis of race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

The global definition of marriage should be as follows: "The uniting of consenting individuals in a witnessed ceremony."

We believe everyone has the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adult(s) of their choice, regardless of birth or sexual orientation.

The Fine Print

The focus of this blog is consenting adults. This blog does not advocate anyone engage in activity that is currently illegal in their jurisdiction; it does advocate changing or repealing any law that prevents the freedom of association, love, and full marriage equality for adults. This blog condemns rape, sexual assault, and child molestation, and frowns in the general direction of cheating. This blog exists mainly to evaluate information and direct others to information about current events; it does not provide medical, therapeutic, legal, financial, or cooking advice. This blog links to other sites for informational purposes; it does not necessarily support everything at those links.